25 Apr
2006
25 Apr
'06
7 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 10:26:09AM +1000, Loki Davison wrote:
On 4/25/06, Hans Fugal <hans(a)fugal.net> wrote:
OK, given that no-one has spoken out against it, I'm happy to include
a required shortname for ports, that must be [_a-zA-Z][_a-zA-Z0-9]* or
similar.
It's a burdon on all plugin authors, but host authors can ignore it.
I've tentatively added ladspa:shortname to the stawman plugin's ports.
- Steve
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 at 08:57 +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
Me too. On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 06:40:32 -0400, Dave
Robillard wrote:
Well then let me weigh in. I have in the past cursed the insensibility
of referencing a port with its arbitrary (from the human's POV)
numerical ID. I want human-friendly port IDs. For the sake of the record, it's been duked
out on IRC and Steve
wins :). (Specifically, ports will be required to have a unique string
ID, but it will live in the data file, not the code).
Actually I didn't mean to say that they /will/ be required, just that I
don't have a problem with it. I've not heard anyone else speak in favour
of this, and it is a feature. If theres a critical mass of support I'm OK
with adding it, as it should make the lives of some hosts much easier.